• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

America's Catholic Supreme Court

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I dont care what they believe. It should never touch legislation, however.
Hers cleaely does. Her speech is basically a sermon on how and why lawyers should do their part to be "different lawyers....who build the kingdom of god." Hence her anti abortion record.
We shall see.
Hoping for the best.
Concerned it might be the worst.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We shall see.
Hoping for the best.
Concerned it might be the worst.
Her speech suggests she'd have the voting record she has. Her voting record we can see it has ties to the same ideology echoed in her speech.
If she gets nominated and Dems dont push for more judges, abandon all hope ye who enter.
This is the unfortunate disaster of a Trump presidency, predicted before he was elected. The unseen disaster was Covid, and I am concerned should something like mask requirements and social restrictions be brought up.
At this point it is the worst case scenario of a Trump presidency, and we need a miracle on the turn of the last card to save us from serious steps backwards in many areas.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Her speech suggests she'd have the voting record she has. Her voting record we can see it has ties to the same ideology echoed in her speech.
If she gets nominated and Dems dont push for more judges, abandon all hope ye who enter.
This is the unfortunate disaster of a Trump presidency, predicted before he was elected. The unseen disaster was Covid, and I am concerned should something like mask requirements and social restrictions be brought up.
At this point it is the worst case scenario of a Trump presidency, and we need a miracle on the turn of the last card to save us from serious steps backwards in many areas.
Suggested miracle....
Biden gives all his EC votes to Jorgensen.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Ha! Made me chuckle.
We have some too, and there have been some strong political influencers who are pretty conservative Catholics in recent years here. But ultimately I think your groups are a little more mainstream in a sense, and more organised.

Australians are apathetic. The biggest impact here traditionally (imho) has been more around school networks built up through private schooling, rather than the religious beliefs in and of themselves.
For a long time the protestant churches claimed that catholics weren't allowed to study the bible, and this was looked upon as a great evil. In large part it was correct that they weren't supposed to study the bible. The dioceses these days probably have to have some bible study just to fend off the various rumors of surrounding churches. There is a little bit of influence from the protestants to get the Catholics to read the whole bible. So for example in the USA a Catholic lady may find herself on card night surrounded by protestant friends who have arguments about eschatology, and there's nothing for it except to ask her diocese for a bible study. Thirty years ago I heard of some Catholic churches which practiced glossalalia and were into healing services and were heavy into bible-based belief. I think charismatic Catholic churches that @exchemist encountered may have been one of these or he may have encountered Catholics surrounded by churches with a lot of bible discussions.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Except he's not a politician. His appointment is for life. :shrug:

Yes, sorry, after I posted I realised it could easily be read literally.
I meant in a more colloquial sense. He's gotten to where he is by understanding politics (be they petty, office or federal in nature).
If he came out and said (as a more extreme example) that he was a gay atheist, and proud of it, he's not ending up on the Supreme Court, regardless of his capability.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
For a long time the protestant churches claimed that catholics weren't allowed to study the bible, and this was looked upon as a great evil. In large part it was correct that they weren't supposed to study the bible. The dioceses these days probably have to have some bible study just to fend off the various rumors of surrounding churches. There is a little bit of influence from the protestants to get the Catholics to read the whole bible. So for example in the USA a Catholic lady may find herself on card night surrounded by protestant friends who have arguments about eschatology, and there's nothing for it except to ask her diocese for a bible study. Thirty years ago I heard of some Catholic churches which practiced glossalalia and were into healing services and were heavy into bible-based belief. I think charismatic Catholic churches that @exchemist encountered may have been one of these or he may have encountered Catholics surrounded by churches with a lot of bible discussions.

That argument dates all the way back to the schism in England during Henry VIII's times, and biblical translations. To me that is a mark of pretty extreme conservatism, but I don't know enough about the modern situation in the USA to be doing anything more than guessing on that.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Her speech suggests she'd have the voting record she has. Her voting record we can see it has ties to the same ideology echoed in her speech.
If she gets nominated and Dems dont push for more judges, abandon all hope ye who enter.
This is the unfortunate disaster of a Trump presidency, predicted before he was elected. The unseen disaster was Covid, and I am concerned should something like mask requirements and social restrictions be brought up.
At this point it is the worst case scenario of a Trump presidency, and we need a miracle on the turn of the last card to save us from serious steps backwards in many areas.

I think you have good reason to worry.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I heard most of the Supreme Court Justices are omnivores too. Maybe they are anti-Veganists!

Seriously, there is no evidence that their religion makes any difference. They deal with legal issues, not theological ones.
A Dominionist doesn't see a difference between the two. There is no separation of church and state.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I dont care what they believe. It should never touch legislation, however.
Hers cleaely does. Her speech is basically a sermon on how and why lawyers should do their part to be "different lawyers....who build the kingdom of god." Hence her anti abortion record.

I wonder where they get the idea that Christians should be anti-abortion. The bible certainly isn't and neither is the Hebrew god.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Assuming Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the Senate and becomes a Supreme Court Justice, she will be the 6th Justice (out of 9) who is Catholic. The others are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor. Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but is now Episcopalian.

Catholics compose about 20% of the American population. Does the fact that we have such a disproportionately high number of Catholics on the Court concern you? Thrill you? Intrigue you? Is it irrelevant to you? What do you think it will mean for the legal future of social issues, e.g. contraception, abortion, and LGBTQ rights?

We have numerous Christian denominations, Hindus, Buddhists, Siks, Islamists, and atheists all of whom are not represented. It would be impossible to give all religions, beliefs, ethnicities, etc proportional representation on the court. The best that can ever by hoped for is that each judge, whatever their beliefs and backgrounds takes note of their own personal biases and tried to the best of their ability to see past them when making judicial decisions.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Here is the direct quote.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=commencement_programs


That is very alarming. It does make her a threat to our rights and liberties, amd is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution. Her entire speech was basically a sermon.
Aha, now we have it. That's useful.

All she is saying, it seems to me, is that a religious person should always, whatever they do in life, do it in the service of God, because for a religious believer that is the overall goal of life. Don't forget, this is an address to a room full of potential lawyers, fresh out of law school. Most will go on to be attorneys or legal advisers. They have choices to make about the fields they practise in and on how they conduct themselves in their work. This is a pep talk exhorting them to remember their faith as they make their way in life. That's fair enough, I think.

She explains that what she means is that these graduates should not let pursuit of a career in the law become an end in itself (You cannot serve both God and Mammon, basically). She then goes on to give three examples of what she means by a "different sort of lawyer". One is praying to St Ignatius before making career decisions, another is giving 10% of your income to charity and a third is when moving to a new location to seek out fellow Catholics and become part of the community.

There is nothing here that says she personally would bend the law out of shape to serve some particular agenda, nor that these graduates should try to do so. In fact her subsequent pronouncements about recusing herself from capital punishment cases seem to indicate she is aware that she is duty-bound to withdraw if she can't set her personal beliefs aside.

She may or may not be be a religious crank (People of Praise is not a good sign, in my estimation), but there's no smoking gun here.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
For a long time the protestant churches claimed that catholics weren't allowed to study the bible, and this was looked upon as a great evil. In large part it was correct that they weren't supposed to study the bible. The dioceses these days probably have to have some bible study just to fend off the various rumors of surrounding churches. There is a little bit of influence from the protestants to get the Catholics to read the whole bible. So for example in the USA a Catholic lady may find herself on card night surrounded by protestant friends who have arguments about eschatology, and there's nothing for it except to ask her diocese for a bible study. Thirty years ago I heard of some Catholic churches which practiced glossalalia and were into healing services and were heavy into bible-based belief. I think charismatic Catholic churches that @exchemist encountered may have been one of these or he may have encountered Catholics surrounded by churches with a lot of bible discussions.
No, actually. My experience with charismatics is that one of my brothers set himself up as an evangelical charismatic pastor. They actually had people fainting in his church during the services - to my mind, an exercise in mass manipulation of emotion and hysteria. Creepy. Setting aside your reason is the way to Nuremberg rallies.

As for my US experience, it was coming across leaflets from Donoghue (of the US Catholic League) lying about in more than one of the Catholic churches I visited in Houston. He seems to be a thoroughly unpleasant and unChristian man and to be promoting a sort of defensive tribalism. I was deeply shocked that at least two parish priests thought it appropriate to allow his stuff in their churches. It would be unthinkable in any Catholic church I have been in the UK, France or the Netherlands.

I have no issue with bible discussion. My mother (a high-and-dry Anglican and English teacher) used to run bible discussion groups in our house when I was growing up, so for me that is quite normal. But these were intelligent explorations of the bible as a literary work, debating and pondering the meanings of the imagery, rather than an exercise in quote-mining individual sentences to beat people round the head with, as some of the evangelicals do - often from specially obscure and irrelevant bits of the Old Testament.:rolleyes:
 

ecco

Veteran Member
What I posted are also actual quotes.

Here is a quote...

Amy Coney Barrett and 'building the Kingdom of God'

“One way” Notre Dame Law graduates could distinguish themselves is to “always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end,” and “that end is building the kingdom of God,” Barrett said.​

Now if you think the Catholic News Agency is misquoting a Notre Dame graduate, then take it up with them.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I wonder where they get the idea that Christians should be anti-abortion. The bible certainly isn't and neither is the Hebrew god.
The Roe v. Wade Justices carefully explored the aspects of religious precedents. In actual practice throughout the ages, abortion was permitted.

This is something that most anti-abortionists are ignorant of.
 
Top